181 Talgarth Road – April 2020 RSHP scheme

In April last year we reported on the hotel development proposed for the former West London Magistrate’s Court site at 181 Talgarth Road, a proposal which would include two hotels:  a 442-bedroom, 23-storey luxury hotel, and a 440-bed, 10-storey tourist hotel. Permission for the development was agreed in July, and after referral to the Mayor’ office the consent was confirmed in December.

Since then, with the change in economic circumstances, the developer Dominvs Group has chosen to revise the scheme:  retaining the tourist hotel, but providing Student Accommodation for up to 696 students, possibly linked to the Imperial College White City campus, in place of the 23-storey luxury hotel. 

181 Talgarth Road – March 2021 proposed scheme

Initial proposals are for a student block with massing generally similar to the approved luxury hotel block, but adjusted to reduce the maximum height by two storeys, to 68 metres, and to enlarge the plan to add 2,400 sq. m floor area. We understand that TP Bennett, architects of King’s House at the other end of Shortlands, are to be appointed for this building, and that the accommodation would be run by Scape who are well-known in the sector.

No change is proposed to the tourist hotel design, but the landscaped public realm within the site would become a student amenity space, providing access to the student cycle store – a more mundane provision which lacks the tempietto, restaurant and bar which created a welcome spark in the earlier scheme. The prospect of a revised planning application has revived the considerable public opposition to the earlier development, and the Society is participating in consultations currently taking place.

181 Talgarth Road – 2021 proposed public realm

This new scheme opens a further chapter in the uncomfortable history of this important site. The story began with the sale of the land by the Ministry of Justice, evidently failing to follow Cabinet Office guidelines which require that, prior to commercial sale, sites in public ownership should be assessed for residential, educational or similar public benefit. The sale of the Magistrates Court site was advertised with enticements including ‘precedent for tall buildings’ and reports of ‘positive pre-application feedback from LBHF’  without revealing the LBHF advice received.  It is not clear if the £42m purchase price paid by Dominvs was based on a development valuation gleaned from the ‘evolving’ Town Centre Masterplan – a plan which has been evolving since 2015, but has still not been reviewed through public consultation. The provisional Masterplan currently circulating is based on a plan which incorporates the completed A4 fly-under tunnel, describing a misleading urban context for the hotel site. 

As membership secretary, I regularly hear the clarion call  “I’m not on Social Media so I can’t see your posts…”  It’s a popular myth that you must sign up, notwithstanding the fact that our latest Twitter and Facebook postings automatically appear on our home page (have you checked recently..?),  all three “platforms” that we use are publicly accessible to anyone, as are most social media sites.  They will encourage you to sign up, perhaps even boost the myth that you must for obvious reasons, but you can ignore that without missing that much.  However paradoxically it will help our cause if you do sign up and follow us – read on…

Facebook Twitter Instagram

I’ve read concerns about  tracking, cookies, and a good range of urban myths too, but many are outdated.  A number of issues are addressed in our website and accessibility guide and related privacy policy, but in short if you don’t have an account with the platform in question, there’s limited tracking they can do, while at the same time still giving you access to useful local material. Increasingly newer browser versions are closing these avenues of tracking joy, and the effects are often rather more prosaic than perhaps popular hyperbolae might suggest.  You can, of course, always delete browsing data, including cookies, or use the Incognito/inPrivate modes available on all modern browsers to properly eliminate tracking if it still concerns you.

Why follow us on Social Media?

#BernieSanders patiently waits to cross the Bridge

It’s a lot simpler and quicker for us to post short updates, reactions to news, and links to events of interest on these platforms – particularly Twitter – than it is to create longform articles such as this, or physical/pdf newsletters.  One or two of our survey responses have suggested more regular updates, and this is one way to respond.  These postings form a useful complement to our other publishing, as text messages complement email and letters.  We post something almost daily on one platform or another,  so there’s always something new on the website as a result too.

Planning for the future

In March of this year the government promised legislation to improve the supply of new homes, including legislation on building safety, rental reform, social housing – and an update to the planning system.

Following this, a government White Paper Planning for the Future proposed very significant changes to the planning process for public consultation which closed last week.

Changes to the planning procedure

At present, LBHF planning applications are assessed against the development policies in the LBHF Local Plan, in the London Plan, and in the government NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework). The White Paper proposes a new approach:  a new form of Local Plan, replacing the current format of more abstract policy guidance, by a format with a prescriptive system of development rules and a design code. The Local Plan would also include borough zone plans, which would identify three categories of development:

1. Growth areas where ‘substantial development’ would be suitable (similar, we suggest, to Earls Court, Old Oak Common etc)
2. Renewal areas such as existing built areas where development is encouraged (Hammersmith Town Centre, for example)
3. Protected areas like conservation and heritage areas, green belt and parkland.

Planning zones

In Growth and Renewal areas, proposals which are compliant with the Local Plan in height, use-type etc, and compliant with the government NPPF rules, would be effectively guaranteed an automatic outline planning consent, providing a level of certainty in site purchase values. At the next stage, a full planning application,  with detailed proposals, would be granted consent if the proposals comply with the more detailed rules and design codes of the Local Plan.

Community involvement

Public consultation in the planning process would be limited to the stage when the new Local Plan is put together by the local authority: community involvement would be excluded from full planning application stage, because (it is argued)  the application would be assessed against rules which have already been agreed through public consultation.

The intention is to establish a clear set of planning rules, which are in line with government policy, and have been agreed through community consultation; armed with these certainties applications would avoid the ambiguities of policy interpretation and community objection which (it is said) can delay the full planning application stage.

Design codes

CreateStreets – Bonnington Square

To illustrate examples of acceptable design and styling, and to provide a basis of resolution of design disagreements, Design Codes would form part of the Local Plan, and would be reviewed through public consultation when the new Local Plan is being put together. Design codes would be coordinated with the government’s National Design Guide, itself heavily influenced by the CreateStreets campaign and to the emerging National Model Design Code. To help the process, a chief officer for design and place-making would be appointed within each local authority.

The national picture for COVID-19 is mixed with some areas much more affected than others.  Despite well-publicised issues around test-track-and-trace, in a world of “big data”, the Government has made significant efforts to publish quite detailed data at various levels, if not always easy to tease out. At borough level, infection, test positivity, and death data is available, and we have also included relevant hospital data for our local NHS Trust, Imperial.

To help members better gauge the local situation, we’ve used this data to create an interactive chart, both here, and pinned to the head of the website for the time being, automatically updated every day in the early evening.  Due to the well-known delays in test results, be aware that latest numbers are always revised upwards for severa days after initial publication, so we now filter the newest unrepresentative figures – check here regularly for updates.

The interactive map shown adjacent provides infection data in the last week by “MSOA” (Middle Super Output Area), representing c.7200 people, an area which approximates a council ward. H&F has the distinction of having the physically smallest MSOA in the country – E02000378 – Shepherds Bush South.  Click on the map to see more information about each area.

H&F council COVID-19 advice is here.

H&F HealthWatch

We’ve been contacted by our member Jane Wilmot, also a member of the local H&F HealthWatch committee who want to find out how H&F residents have used GP practices during lockdown and in particular uncover any experiences of health inequality. HealthWatch is a statutory committee of the independent regulator, the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

If you would like to help, please:

• Complete the survey by 12th October: Survey Monkey link
• Share the survey among all your contacts including any contacts on Twitter
• Alert anyone you know who does not have a smart phone or internet access to let them know they can contact HealthWatch for a hard copy, ask for help in completing the survey etc.

If you would like any assistance in completing the survey or would like it in another format, please contact H&F HealthWatch at or call 0203 886 0386. Healthwatch Hammersmith & Fulham address: 141-143 King Street, W6 9JG.

Health scares, 18 metre masts, autonomous vehicles, economic recovery, critical national infrastructure, Huawei… It’s a long list.

2020/01852/TEL56: Rylett Road / John Betts House: 5G proposed mast and cabinets

In Hammersmith we’ve started to see planning notices for 5G base stations, ironically mostly from the company named Three, and yes, since you ask, they are using Huawei.

From the Society’s perspective, our concerns centre on the mast height, positioning, and the associated, rather retro, street clutter.  There’s some further reading at the foot of the article, but first, to get some perspective, let’s get our terminology clear, review the most prevalent public concerns and take quite a hard look at the benefits – both real and more far-fetched.

The most widely used 5G band in the UK will be 3.6GHz…
…5G is just as safe as 4G, 3G and GSM.
– Institution of Engineering and Technology

A quick canter through some confusing G’s

1G to 5G phones

Here 1G means ‘First Generation’ AKA Analogue ‘brick’ phones of the 1980’s, 2G (AKA ‘GSM’ or ‘Global System for Mobile Communications’), a typical Nokia from the late 1990’s, 3G, the first phones with really usable Internet connections, and today’s 4G, typified by a smartphone – Apple or Android. There was even a 2.5G and we mention 4.5G later.

The gifts of Heinrich Hertz, or a billion of them, come in the form of a Gigahertz (GHz), the frequency a thousand times the Megahertz we’ve had since VHF FM radio days.  1G to 4G phones have used various radio frequencies over the years, depending on operator and country, from 800MHz up to 2.6GHz, but the operating frequency used doesn’t directly affect the data speed as far as the user is concerned.  WiFi is sometimes confusingly termed 2.4G or ‘2.4 Gig’ or ‘5 Gig’, referring to bands – 2.4GHz (the same frequency as a microwave oven but a minuscule fraction of the power) and 5GHz: a less congested, shorter range band that has nothing to do with 5G: 5th generation mobile technology.

In the digital world we similarly have Megabits describing the speed of received data – whatever the technology that delivered it – and the Gigabit of your scribe’s home, and likely your office’s high speed Ethernet wired network. We won’t discuss the many flavours of WiFi on top of the frequency bands mentioned: A, B, G, N AC, AX… a story seemingly involving yet another G, until WiFi leapfrogs 5G by changing it’s letters to numbers, becoming WiFi 4, 5, and 6, and in future extending into a new 6GHz band.  That’s the GG’s corralled 🐴

The most popular 5G band, 3.6 GHz, is slightly higher than current ranges, the implication may be more base stations as range is slightly reduced, but other bands may be used to compensate. The 700MHz band for example, cleared in June this year (responsible for the loss of several HD TV channels from Crystal Palace), has yet to be auctioned off, but is earmarked by OFCOM for 5G.

Mobile emissions

If you are at all concerned about health effects, first check and understand the implications of the SAR value for your existing 2G/3G/4G phone, which have been published by manufacturers since the days of 2G when such concerns first arose – or better, stop using it now !

Unfortunately in addition to the above health concerns, the 5G cause has been muddied, and probably harmed by overzealous marketing, too many G’s and spurious claimed benefits – we prefer to keep to the tried-and-trusted recipe of ‘more & faster’, on which it certainly will deliver. 

12-14 Wellesley Ave – 2019 proposal

The Hammersmith Society is supporting our affiliate, the Brackenbury Residents Association and the local action group in objecting to the development proposed for the former Aston Martin garage at 12-14 Wellesley Avenue.

The application scheme proposes a 3-storey building, significantly higher than the street building line, with 1,800 square metres of office space for an estimated 150 employees, in a street with a residential population of around 80.  We reported that an earlier application for a larger scheme was refused planning consent and lost a subsequent appeal – refer to our related stories with more recent coverage in last winter’s newsletter.  The current, slightly reduced scheme was again refused consent earlier this year.

Former Nicholas Mee garage, Wellesley Ave

The applicant is appealing against the refusal, and the local residents group is inviting support for their petition against the development.

Hammersmith Society’s letter of objection

Civic Voice launched its Manifesto 2020-2023, 50 years after the Skeffington Report on Public Participation in Planning, which arose from growing concern about the top-down nature of post-war planning and development and growing interest in the idea of ‘participatory democracy’ (that ordinary people need to be engaged in decision-making rather than simply voting for representatives to make decisions on their behalf).

A Civic Voice members survey last year found that 80% of people feel that developers do not effectively engage with the community and 72% said the same about local authorities. Recent research by Grosvenor Britain & Ireland also found a significant distrust of the planning process within communities. Just 2% of the public trust developers and only 7% trust local authorities when it comes to planning for large-scale development.  

This week’s news concerning the housing minister, the role of large developers and oblique arguments about viability, plus the role of CIL, brings these issues into sharp focus

The Civic Voice ambition is to move away from ‘confrontation to collaboration’ and from ‘consultations to conversations’. Its manifesto consists of the following three key recommendations to the Government and to Local Authorities, which aim at placing Civic Societies like the Hammersmith Society at the heart of their communities:

1. Create a more ‘accessible, balanced and collaborative’ (ABC) planning system with communities at the heart.
2. Move towards a citizen-led, participative model of governance for our towns, cities and villages.
3. Ensure local authorities have the appropriate resources and proper powers to enhance the historic environment to make better places.

The Council is struggling to finance the upkeep of its school estate, a portfolio which includes over forty primary schools.  Limited funds have been available since the government Building Schools for the Future programme was terminated in 2010, and in March last year the Council introduced a “Community Schools Programme”, proposing to finance the improvement works by the building of affordable housing on school grounds. The programme starts with Flora Gardens and Avonmore Primary Schools.

Flora Gardens School Site

We are concerned at the direction of this policy: the unquestionable priority of good public education facilities does not justify the loss of public open space.

Public open space is sacred, it is a rare and precious commodity, and the acceptance of a practice which permanently removes the open space to alleviate a temporary financial shortfall is a mistake: it erodes the quality of our urban surroundings to the detriment of the public realm, and removes potential sites for future social facilities such as youth clubs and provision for the elderly, but also removes spare capacity essential to accommodate the likely increase in space requirements arising from the current review of school standards. 

181 Talgarth Road is the site where the former West London Magistrates building stands, located between the Ark office building and the BP garage, at the foot of the flyover.

West London Magistrates court: Initial design – now superseded

After the closing of the court facilities in 2017, the site was sold for commercial use, and in January 2019 the new owner submitted a planning application for a 800-bed  hotel development.  The proposals attracted widespread opposition from the local community including the Hammersmith Society, and as a result, in an unusual and public-spirited move, the developer, The Dominvs Group, chose to set aside the application, despite receiving a planning report recommending approval.

After discussions with LBHF, the Dominvs Group appointed a new design team with architects Rogers Stirk Harbour and Partners (RSHP), who are also the architects for the Town Hall Civic Campus project.

West London Magistrates Court: RSHP redesign

The new design team were set to work to a demanding programme, and the Society joined a series of consultation meetings with the site neighbours, in particular the residents of the streets south of the site, whose outlook would have been dominated by the double slab block of the earlier scheme.

A planning application for the new scheme was lodged at the beginning of April, and the Society has now reviewed the proposals and returned comments to LBHF. The application may be viewed on the planning website here: 2020/00915/FUL. 

UPDATED: Our detailed review is here:
 Letter to LBHF – Hammersmith Society comments

Women’s Pioneer Housing, 227 Wood Lane

We reported in the Winter 2019-2020 newsletter that a proposal was being prepared by Architects Allford Hall Monaghan Morris for a new 25-storey tower block to the north of the A40 on Wood Lane.

The proposals replace Browning House, which is a 4-storey social housing block owned by Women’s Pioneer Housing (WPH). They are a housing association providing specialist accommodation.

An application has been submitted for a 29-storey tower, the proposals increasing the number of 2-person, 1-bedroom flats for WPH from 36 to 80, plus creating an additional 350 co-living accommodation units to be rented by developer HUB. These provide compact 1-person studio flats serviced by communal kitchens, living spaces and other facilities.

One justification for the 29-storey tower is the approval granted for the recently completed 34-storey ‘Ziggurat’ tower on the Imperial College White City campus site on the opposite side of Wood Lane. The latter was unpopular locally, but was approved on the basis that it was within the White City Regeneration Area. Tall buildings are only permitted under LBHF Planning Policy and the Mayor’s London Plan if they are considered ‘appropriate’,  and are within one of four development areas identified in the Local Plan.

The proposed tower is located outside of the White City development area, which raises the questions: how are applications decided for tall buildings located outside, but adjacent to the outer boundary of development areas ? And whether approvals within development areas can be used as precedent to justify nearby developments outside of the area, that would otherwise not comply with planning policy ?